9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Aug 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. voyager Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    yes, with squibs clearly visible.
    you don't see that in the live footage of WTC 1 and 2 collapse.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    by squibs, i'll take you to mean the flashes of light rather than the debris ejecta often referred to as "puffs of dust" clearly vivible in many videos. with regard to flashes (squibs), I have shown the flashes in the last umpteen posts. what live footage are you talking about? you mean the footage filmed 5 miles from ground zero? that footage? or are you referring to the footage where the outer core columns obscure any vision into the core of the structure. why would you think that squibs would be visible through the tight spacing that was the outer core columns?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Sorry dude, conservation of momentum says you are wrong.

    The formula for kinetic energy is k = m v**2 / 2. The moving mass hitting a stationary mass will be slowed down by the increased mass but since the velocity is squared in the kinetic energy equation the total energy is reduced more by the change in velocity than increased by the change in mass.

    Every level of the lower intact portion would further slow down the falling portion.

    'til is STOPPED or fell off the side.

    The calculations for conservation of momentum and gravitational acceleration of a "sample" fall are here:

    http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/52039/

    And that excludes structural resistance.

    psik
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Ok, after seeing their latest video, it seems that no one has actually said they saw the light poles being clipped by a plane, only that it happened. As to the witnesses themselves, that's an interesting story in and of itself. There's a long thread about it here:
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg1

    Anyway, I intend to link this post over to the CIT forum to see if they'd like to add anything.
     
  8. voyager Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    the sparkling? those aren't squibs.
    plus the one that was taken practically looking straight up.
    the camera crew had to run to escape the debris.
    there were quite a few videos shot that day.
    NONE of them show any sign of squibs.
     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I certainly don't find it comforting at all.


    To tell you the honest truth, I'm not sure W. had anything to do with it. If he did, he was probably kept out as much as possible because of his blundering ways. When he testified, he did so only with Cheney at his elbow, perhaps to try to ensure that he didn't screw things up. His father, who was formerly CIA director, or his brother, Marvin Bush, who was a principal in the security company of the WTC towers, are another matter entirely.
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    They took witness statements, which can clearly be seen in the video. The conclusions they drew up seem quite logical to me.


    They didn't ignore it. They simply stated that if people see a plane almost level with the pentagon, then they see an explosion soon after, then they hear the news reports stating that a plane hit the pentagon, it would be very easy for them to assume that the plane did, indeed, hit the pentagon. The other incredibly important point is that the plane -could not- have hit the pentagon from the angle they all describe. Do you understand how important that is? There were no light poles knocked down from that angle. The -only- angle that would have worked if they flew in from the south side; and this is -precisely- what they all say -didn't- happen.
     
  11. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    right, because you know exactly what the flashes are don't you, and the flashes aren't squibs, right? well i guess next time a crime is committed we should not bother with a jury trial, we should just ask you who did it, because you don't need to explain the why of something using logic or evidence, you just state what is true and what is false. all hail for the oracle is here!

    practically looking straight up is the last place you are likely to see any squib flashes. you have to see through the external columns which were tightly packed together to provide strength to the towers, and you would have to see into the core 20 or so meters, and you have to see through all the office partitions and other furniture in the offices, and you have to see through 70 floors, each one of which is a solid mass of steel and concrete with no windows or way of seeing through it because eyes do not see through concrete and steel!

    I have shown you TWO in this thread. or do we not count the ones I link to?
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I prefer the alternate theory supporters who have links to people who have been published in peer reviewed journals myself:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Are you saying that the fact that the report makes no mention of evaporated steel means that it did not, in fact, reach those temperatures? If so, what evidence do you have that this is the case?
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    What irregularities?
     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Even NIST never gets its computer model to collapse; even with its tweaking, it doesn't go beyond 'poised for collapse'. Why do you suppose that is?
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You're right, I don't know. Don't think it's all that relevant either. If you want to get an in depth report on the failings of the various official theories regarding the WTC collapse, I'd advise that you read the 'Inconsistencies in “Official” Models' section of Steven Jones' "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely
    Collapse?", which starts on page 41 and ends on page 43 of the PDF version of the article:
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    How about the force that held the buildings up to begin with? You may (wrongly) argue that the fires took down a floor or 2, but that doesn't account for the rest of them.


    Are you really comparing a collapsed floor or 2 hitting the rest of the WTC to a bowling ball hitting a house of cards?

    Anyway, you may want to read the following article by David Ray Griffin, debunking Ryan Mackey's supposed debunkings:
    http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html
     
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The fact that you call him an 'idiot' doesn't make him so. I have found his comments to be most informative.


    Yes, there are lots of people on the site who aren't architects or engineers. However, there are also more then 520 architects and engineers.


    Not if you're not an architect or engineer, no. However, if you -are- one of these, then yes there is. Take a look:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/signnow.php

    I also encourage you to look at the credentials and information of all the architects and engineers that have signed the petition:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php (just scroll down a bit)


    I think that's more a scientist thing. Steven Jones, who has been published in the past in Nature and Scientific American for his work on muon catalyzed fusion, has certainly submitted papers to peer reviewed journals and has recently gotten one published as well.
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The point is the computer models were completely discredited. Anyway, let's see the evidence of these sagging floors, and evidence that the fires caused the sagging (as opposed to things like thermite) while you're at it.
     
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    David Ray Griffin has this to say about the issue of scale:
    *************************************
    If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses, and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height and proportions.
    *************************************
    http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html


    Not at all.


    Who said they were lighter than plastic?


    I see no implication that additional load was avoided. I did find some more good articles on the absurdity of the official story, however:
    "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!" by J. McMichael,
    Part 1: http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm
    Part 2: http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_2.htm


    Why do you feel that way? As to why the plates failed, I imagine the thermate sliced through them handily. In any case, if you want to see the progression of the official story regarding the WTC collapses along with their refutations, feel free to take a look at Steven Jones 'Inconsistencies in “Official” Models' section in his 'Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?' article:
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf , page 41-43
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2008
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    NIST isn't some lone poster or debunking site. It's the National Institute for Standards and Technology. They are the backbone of the official theory regaring the WTC collapses. Given this, we should definitely criticize anything NIST misses and demand that the many flaws in their research be investigated.


    Not sure what you're trying to say there.


    Sure. You, in contrast, have concluded that the official storyline is correct and are attempting to bolster your position that the WTC collapses follow the official storyline.


    Actually, you're mistaken there. If you could provide credible evidence that it wasn't a demolition, I'd believe it. The problem is that you haven't been able to do so.


    True to a point; I'm not sure exactly how the buildings were demolished; neither are many people in the 9/11 Truth Movement. However, the one thing that most 9/11 Truth Movement people -do- agree on is that the buildings were demolished; in my view, and in the view of most truthers, the evidence for controlled demolitions is quite compelling.


    The 9/11 truth movement has a variety of adherents, amoung which is the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven:
    "PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven."
    http://physics911.ca/members/
     
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The official storyline's theory regarding the the cause of the WTC collapse has changed many times, with one exception: they have never allowed for anything other then the jets and the fires to have been the cause of the collapse. In any case, I assume that by the 3 buildings, you mean the twin towers and the pentagon, but for the purposes of our audience, I will ask for the record if that's what you meant?

    Anyway, NIST's work on the temperatures in the WTC buildings and issues relating to steel strength in jet initiated office fires have been refuted. The government itself at first claimed that one of the towers fell at around 10 seconds, which is about free fall speed; this was apparently later revised to 15 seconds. The difference is inconsequential, since the towers should -never- have collapsed if jet initiated fires were the only thing affecting them.


    Why not? I personally would like to believe that if -I- can prove to you that 9/11 was an inside job, -you- would change your tune. I think it's good to be optimistic

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    There's only so much 'evidence' I have time for. Frankly, this forum is consuming -tons- of my time; haven't played World of Warcraft in days

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Sigh. Yes, clearly. The point is that there's no evidence that jet fuel initiated office fires could have gotten it much higher then about 500C. Explosives, on the other hand, could, and apparently did, go way beyond 500C, to reach temperatures that vaporize steel.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page